Shaykh 'Ubayd al-Jaabiree answers questions from Aboo 'Abdur-Rahmaan Raa`id Ibn 'Abdul-Jabbaar al-Mahdaawee about some of the recent statements from 'Alee Hasan al-Halabee wherein he states, among other things, that the knowledge of al-Jarh wat-Ta'deel does not exist in the Qur`aan or the Sunnah, that the speech of Shaykh Rabee' Ibn Haadee al-Madkhalee is a fitnah that must be weighed upon the scales and that Jam'iyyah Ihyaa`ut-Turaath of Kuwait were the most abundant of people in aiding the manhaj of Shaykh al-Albaanee in the issues of eemaan. These questions were recorded at Shaykh 'Ubayd's house on the 29th of Sha'baan, 1429H.

First Question: I would like to present to you, shaykhuna al fadhil, some of the quotes from the speech of 'Alee Hasan al-Halabee, which have occured in some of the widespread recordings, in which he said, "The knowledge of al-Jarh wat-Ta'deel was originally formed for a benefit; the knowledge of al-Jarh wat-Ta'deel is not present in the proofs of the Kitab nor in the proofs of the Sunnah. It is a knowledge that is growing. It came about for the preservation of the Kitab and the Sunnah. Therefore it is a knowledge of benefit." So what is your opinion about this speech, may Allaah protect you?

First Answer by Shaykh 'Ubayd Ibn 'Abdullaah al-Jaabiree: The praise is for Allaah and the final outcome is for those who have taqwa. And there is no enmity except for those who transgress. And I testify that there is none worthy of worship besides Allaah alone - without any associate - The True and Apparent King. And I testify that Muhammad is His servant and Messenger, the leader of all the children of Adam. May the peace of Allaah be upon him and his family and his good and pure companions, and abundant salutations throughout the passing of the days and nights and the months and the years. To proceed: So the origin of this statement in what is apparent to me is philosophy, trickery, and intellectual analogy. And the answer to it is from a number of angles.

The first angle: the knowledge of al-Jarh wat-Ta'deel has been proven in the Kitab (Qur'an) and Sunnah and by Ijma' (consensus). So from the Kitab al karim (The Noble Qur'an) is the statement of Allaahu subhana wa taa'ala: O you who believe! If a disobedient sinner comes to you with some news, verify it, lest you harm people in ignorance, and afterwards you become regretful to what you have done. (Al-Hujurat 49:6)

So this aya is a clear text about the acceptance of the news of one trustworthy person. And the point of that is that Allaahu subhanahu wa taa'ala commanded confirming and verifying once some news comes via a faasiq (a disobedient sinner). And the understanding of that is that the trustworthy narrator does not require confirmation of his news. And the trustworthy narrator is the one who is known for truthfulness, trustworthiness and verification in narrating his reports. And this aya is also a proof for splitting the people up into two categories.

The first of them is the one whom it is obligatory to confirm and verify. And this one is the faasiq, whose fisq is known. And the second is the one whom it is obligatory to accept his report because his honesty is known. So therefore the first of the two categories is majruh (disparaged). And due to this, his report is discredited and the second category is trusted and praised. And due to this, his report is accepted.

As for the proofs from the detailed Sunnah of the Prophet (sallaahu 'alaihi wasallam) that he said: "Give him permission. What an evil brother of his family he is." So when the man entered, the Messenger of Allaah (sallaahu 'alaihi wasallam) was kind and cheerful with him and he spoke to him with lenient speech. So when he left, those who were with the Prophet (sallaahu 'alaihi wasallam) said, "Oh Messenger of Allaah, you said what you said about this man, but you treated him how you treated him. He (sallaahu 'alaihi wasallam) relpied, "The most evil of people is the one whom people abandon" or [he said] "the one whom people leave off out of fear of his indescency." And the point of these two sentences from the hadith is: in the first one, he said, "What an evil brother of his family he is." So this is a disparagement of that man by the agreement of the people of the sharee'ah and the Arabic language. And in the second statement, he said, "The most evil of people is the one whom people abandon." So this is a notification of two things.

The first of them that the Messenger of Allaah (sallaahu 'alaihi wasallam) acting that way with the man in terms of lenient speech, and being kind and cheerful was by way of al mudaaraat (indulging and humoring him). The al mudaaraat is from the obligatory legislated politics in its proper place. And the second thing confirms what has preceeded that the man was dispraised and hated; [he was] a person of indescency, and this is another jarh (disparagement) from him (sallaahu 'alaihi wasallam) against that man.

And as for the second hadith, then it is the hadith of Fatima bint Qays (radiallaahu 'anha), who came to the Messenger of Allaah (sallaahu 'alaihi wasallam) and said, "Oh Meesenger of Allaah. Verily, Abu Jahm and Mu'awiyah have proposed marriage to me." So he (sallaahu 'alaihi wasallam) said, "As for Mu'awiyah, then he is destitute (having no wealth). And as for Abu Jahm, then he does not remove the staff from his shoulder [to the end of the hadith]..."

So the point to be taken from it is that the Messenger of Allaah (sallaahu 'alaihi wasallam) spoke about these two companions (radiallaahu 'anhuma) in a manner that would cause the woman to not accept any one of them, because the Messenger of Allaah (sallaahu 'alaihi wasallam) found fault with both of them - in each case a fault that would cause the proposed woman not to be satisfied. So the woman wants a man who is wealthy and will settle down with her. But Mu'awiyah was poor, and Abu Jahm used to travel a lot and due to that he was known as a man who would not remove the staff from his shoulder and it is said that this means he would deliver beatings often. So he was a beater of women. And regardless what the case was, women do not like someone with this description.

As for the Ijma' (consensus), then it will be realized by the one who looks into the books of Jarh wat-Ta'deel, which cannot be enumerated. So the Ahlul 'ilm - the old and new - have referred back to these books and they looked into the ones being spoken about. Is he praised and reliable according to these books? So that his narrations can be accepted. Or is he majruh (disparaged) and criticized according to them so that his narration can be rejected? And I do not believe that our brother ash-shaikh 'alee [Hasan al-Halabee ] is ignorant of this, but sometimes philosophical principles can be expressed upon the tongue of a man so he gives voice to statements that are astray. So he ruins and diminishes the listener.

The second aspect of this statement: it grew for a benefit. And we say: which benefit is this? Is it for the benefit of some wordly self interest or is it for a sharee'ah benefit. The answer is the latter. It is for the benefit of safe-guarding the religion of Allaah from foolishness, corruption, misguidance and treachery. And from here we say: that the knowledge of Jarh wat-Ta'deel is of two types.

The first of them is connected to the narrators or reports and those who conveyed them from the Messenger of Allaah (sallaahu 'alaihi wasallam). And its objective is to connect the isnaad from the author of the book of hadith back to the Messenger of Allaah (sallaahu 'alaihi wasallam). So this has already been completed with its usool (foundation) and its qawa'id (principles) and the imams have documented it. There is nothing upon us except to follow their qawa'id in tashih (authentication) and tad'eef (declaring weakness in Jarh and in Ta'deel).

The second is connected to the people of statements and behaviors; it is connected to the conditions of the people. So this knowledge will remain for as long as the Sunnah remains, up until Allaah inherits the earth and all those who were upon it. And by Sunnah, I am referring to the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allaah (sallaahu 'alaihi wasallam). And the people are in need of this knowledge as long as there are dealings amongst them. For example, the one who consults the neighbors of a man or those who have leant him money and other than that from social dealings, then he refers back to people who have had experiences with him. So if they speak well of him, then he is content. And if they criticize him, then he avoids him, and he distances himself from him. Another example: if a man receives a proposal from another [man] regarding a woman under his care, then if the man receiving this proposal is a man of intelligence and cleverness - and before that, if he is sincere toward the woman under his care - then he will remember the statement of the Prophet (sallaahu 'alaihi wasallam): "When a man comes to you whom you are pleased with his [adherence to the] Deen and his manners, then marry him to your women. If you do not do so, there will be fitna in the earth and widespread corruption." It is sahih by combining all of its paths.

So built upon this, he asks the people about this individual. He asks his neighbors, those who know him and his colleagues at work up until he ascertains his affair. So if he finds, after asking his questions, that he is pleased with the man's [adherence to his] religion and manners, then he marries him [to the woman under his care]. And if he finds other than that, after asking his questions, then he must not accept him to marry the woman under his care. And from here it becomes known that if he marries the woman under his guardianship to a man, then later it becomes clear he is not suitable for her, because either he is not pleased with the man's [adherence to his] religion or he's not pleased with his manners, but he did not ask about the man before allowing him to marry her, then the wali (guardian) is to be blamed. And he bears the responsibility for what happens to the woman under his guardianship from oppression, neglect and violation.

Second Question: May Allaah bless you, dear shaykh of ours, and may Allaah preserve you. Secondly, 'Alee al-Halabee says, forming a principle, "so when the affairs become uneasy and we differ about an individual, then it is definitely not permissible for us to make our ikhtilaf (our disagreement) about someone other than us a cause for ikhtilaf between us." So what is your opinion, may Allaah preserve you, about this speech?

Second Answer: I believe that our brother 'Alee is alluding to what occurred in the arena from speech against some of the individuals. And it is inevitable that we explain some issues here. The first issue is that the ikhtilaf about individuals with regard to al Jarh wat-Ta'deel is something old and is not a product of this era. Rather, ever since the imams of this science have become known - the science of al Jarh wat-Ta'deel - the imams have differed about individuals with regards to their Jarh and their Ta'deel. So what is relied upon in this affair is the proof. And from the proofs that will show the correctness of one statement over another is the statement of the people of experience and familiarity with that individual by way of social dealings with him or by looking into his books.

quote:

So the one who establishes the proofs against the man - that he is majruh - and makes apparent the proof of his jarh from his own books or from his statements and clarifies that he is majruh due to these proofs, then it is obligatory to accept the jarih (the criticizer) and to abandon the statement of the mu'adil (the appraiser), because the jarih has additional knowledge, which was hidden from the mu'adil. And perhaps, we will mention an example here. Rather, two examples.

Firstly, Ibrahim ibn Muhammad ibn abi Yahya. He was praised by Imam Ash-Shafi'ee and declared reliable and thiqa (trustworthy), and he would sometimes say, "I have been informed by one whom I do not accuse." (Meaning him.) And the scholars were opposed to that. From them was Malik ibn Anas, Imam Darul-Hijra (rahimahullaah). He was asked about this Ibrahim: Is he reliable? [Imam Malik] said, "No, and not in his religion." So the ta'deel of Ash-Shafi'ee for this Ibrahim ibn abi Yahya was abandoned, and the jarh of the imams against him was accepted. So he did not amount to anything, according to them. He was abandoned in hadith. So the tazkiya of Ash-Shafi'ee did not benefit Ibrahim, and it did not harm Ash-Shafi'ee himself because this was hidden from him.

The second example is Abdur-Rahman ibn Saleh al-'Ataqi. Imam Ahmad (rahimahullaah), along with his lofty status, his leadership and his precdence in virtue, declared him reliable. Abu Dawud criticized him, so the statement of Abu Dawud concerning him is accepted and is correct, because Abu Dawud clarified the reason for the jarh. And the summary, it is the second affair, is that the jarh al-mufasar (the detailed criticism) takes precedence over the ta'deel al-mujmal (general praise).

And thirdly, in this era, our brother Shaykh Rabee' (hafidhahullaah) has confirmed the corruption of the manhaj of Sayyid Qutb and the corruption of his 'aqidah. And he has established the proof for that from the books of the man in the manner that leaves no room for any doubt. So those who are just and the intelligent ones and those who strive to safeguard the 'aqidah and to defend it and its people have accepted the kalam (speech) of Shaikh Rabee' because he established the proof from the books of the man. And as for the stubborn and extreme people and the hizbees, then they glorify the man today. They revere the man and raise him above others and they praise him, and they place him on the same levels as the imams through lying, falseness and slander. And from this, it becomes known that this principle is not correct. Rather, it is corrupt. So Ahlus-Sunnah: look into the proofs and weigh them. And accept from the statements that whose correctness is demonstrated through decisive proof. And they abandon the other statement.

It has been related from Ibn 'Abaas (radiallaahu 'anhumma): "By Allaah, I do not think that anyone's destruction would be more beloved to Shaytaan." It was said, "How is that?" He replied, "A bid'ah (an innovation) is invented in the East or the West, so a man brings it to me. When it reaches me, I suppress it with the Sunnah until it returns back to him."

So we derive that the people are of two categories: a category that does not give any importance to a Jarh wat-Ta'deel and sees it as an ikhtilaf (a disagreement) in which one is free to chose either side. And this is a corrupt manhaj; no one follows it except a jahil (ignoramus) or a person of hawaa (desires). And the second category is the one who looks into the statements of the 'ulemma (scholars) concerning the men whom he was not previously familiar with. So he judges in accordance to the proof. So whoever the proof establishes a criticism for, then he is majruh (disparaged), saqit (discredited). And whomever the proof does not establish a jarh for, then he remains upon the asal (the origin).

And from here, it is said that the people are of three categories: the one who speaks about them is in one of three categories. A category whose integrity and uprightness is apparent, so this one is trustworthy, safe and accepted. And a category whose criticism and deviation is apparent according to the proofs, and this one is disparaged (majruh) and disowned. And a third category [regards the one] who has a blameless record. So it is enough that this one has a blameless record, so the people do not need to tire themselves in researching about him.

And here is a great path and it is the reality concerning the principle. That in the condition of the fitan (trials) that have stormed through the people and agitated them, in such times, the early ones from the imams used to test the people who came to them from the various lands. So if they praised the 'ulemma (scholars) and the elite from Ahlus-Sunnah amongst them, they would bring them close. And if they spoke ill of them, then they would distance them. And from their statements concerning that is: imtahinu Ahlul Madinati bi Malik, wa imtahinu Ahlul Shami bil Awza'ee, wa imtahinu Ahla Misr bi Layth ibni Sa'd, wa imtahinu Ahlul Kufa bi Sufyan, wa imtahinu Ahlul Mawsili bi Mu'afa ibn 'Imran. (Test the people of Madinah with Malik, and test the people of Shaam with Awza'ee, and test the people of Egypt with al-Layth ibni Sa'd, and test the people of Kufa with Sufyan, and test the people of Mawsili with al-Mu'afa ibn 'Imran.)

Third Question: 'Alee al-Halabee says, "then the position of the common students when the people of knowledge unite upon declaring someone an innovator, then they do not have the liberty to oppose that. When they have not united, then I say: if they are able to discern the correct position, they should discern it. They should take whatever they are able from the one who understands, such as any issue of the sharee'ah. Then if you are a muqalid (blind-follower), even if you reach the correct position, so it is enough for you to be a muqalid. As for you being a muqalid and a mujtahid and a defender and a spreader of information, and the flag-bearer of at-ta'deel wal jarh in this issue, this in reality opposes the manhaj of the salaf." So what is your statement, may Allaah preserve you, concerning this speech?

Third Answer: I say that which we have come to know from our imams and that which we have inherited from them is what I have previously alluded to. The consideration is given to the proof. So whoever establishes the proof that a specific man is bid'ee, it is obligatory to declare him, specifically, a mubtadi' (an innovator). This is first.

And secondly, the kalam (speech) of al-akh (brother) 'Alee comprises two or three affairs. Firstly, that consideration is given to the ijma' (consensus) by the ijma' of the imams that so and so from the people is a mubtadi'. I say: this is an excessive error, since many of the Ahlul-Bid'ah who are described as Mu'tazila or Asha'ira or Kulabia or other than them from the Ahlul-Bid'ah, the people have accepted the kalam of one man or two men concerning them as long as this kalam was from a righteous and devout 'alim who was familiar with the men. And he established the proof from their books or he established the proofs from other sources. And from the examples are that Imam Ahmad (rahimahullaah) boycotted Dawud ibn 'Alee Adh-Dhahiree (rahimahullaah) because he said that the Qur'an was newly invented. And the summary of this story is that this Dawud came to Imam Ahmad (rahimahullaah jami'). So he found [Imam Ahmad's] son Abdullaah at the door. So he said, "seek permission for me to enter upon your father. Say to him, a man from Khurasaan wants to greet you." So Imam Ahmad (rahimahullaah) said, "If it is Dawud ibn 'Alee, then he may not enter." And Dawud would make excuses, and Imam Ahmad would say, "No, wallaahi (by Allaah), he cannot enter upon me. Muhammad ibn Yahya ad-Duhali has written to me about him that he [meaning Dawud ibn 'Alee] says that the Qur'an is newly invented." So Imam Ahmad (rahimahullaah) did not seek an ijma' for that from the people of knowledge. In another example is when al-mutawakil al-'Abaasee came. He is the one through whom Allaah drove away from Ahlus-Sunnah the trial of the khalq al-Qur'an (the deviant saying "The Qur'an is created"). Al-mutawakil sent a man to Imam Ahmad (rahimahullaah) in order to consult with him about the people whom he should ally himself with. And Imam Ahmad would say, "This one is no good", "So and so is no good", "So and so is like this", "So and so is Mu'tazilee", "So and so is like that." So did the khalifa accept the statement or did he seek the agreement of someone else along with him in that? So where has our brother 'Alee ibnu Hasan al-Halabee (may Allaah rectify our condition and his) taken this principle? And it is to not accept the statement of anyone in tabdi' of someone except if it occurs through ijma' of the people of knowledge. Yes, if an ijma' is achieved, then who will reject it? However, it is not a condition, although it was clearly stated by our brother al-Halabee (may Allaah pardon us and him).

The second affair - meaning seeking the correct position in an ikhtilaf (disagreement) and describing the one who achieves the correct position as a muqalid (blind follower) - we do not know of this. We have not known this from the imams, describing the one who achieves the correct position in differing statements through the proofs as a muqalid - unless he is the mujtahid of the madhhab, which is correct. And the one who looks into the statements of his imam and determines the correct position from them, this is a muqalid. However, the one seeking the correct path who looks into the differing statements and looks into their proofs, so he seeks out the correct path by the proofs - this one is not called a muqalid. This is from the ijtihad, the independent reasoning that the people of knowledge - old and new who cannot be enumerated - are upon.

Then, this ikhtilaf that our brother 'Alee mentioned, it is a disagreement between whom? The khilaf that is given consideration is that which occurs between Ahlus-Sunnah. As for the khilaf of the mubtadi'a, then it is not given any credibility and it is not looked into in the issues of 'aqidah and manhaj because they are people of desires and people of innovation. And it is only if Ahlus-Sunnah differ concerning a man: is he upon the Sunnah or is he upon bid'ah? Then it is obligatory upon the one who is from the Ahlul-'Ilm (people of knowledge) to look into the proofs of every faction and then to take whatever is the correct position whose correctness has been established through the proof from the statements, as we have previously covered. And another affair is his statement, "And it is sufficient for you to be a muqalid." I say some of the people will understand from this statement a call to taqleed (blind following) in an unrestricted sense or an unrestricted manner. And this is not correct. So the people are of two categories: A category for whom taqleed is not permitted. And this one is the 'alim who has reached the level of ijtihad. So it is obligatory upon him to look into the proofs up until he reaches al-yaqin (certainty) or a predominant assumption about the ruling. The second category is the one who is a layman, or he has some knowledge but he has not reached the level of ijtihad. So this one performs taqleed of the one whose religion and honesty he trusts in issues that are beyond his comprehension. So he follows this person as an imam whose religion and honesty he trusts in a single issue or in a specific issue. As for a person being a mujtahid and a muqalid at the same time, or a seeker of the correct position and a muqalid at the same time, unrestrictedly, then no. So the affair is what we have explained in accordance to what the imams have mentioned (may Allaah have mercy on them).

Fourth question: Jazaku Allaahu khairan (may Allaah reward you). Fourthly, 'Alee al-Halabee says, while answering a question about differentiating between 'aqidah and manhaj, he says, "it is possible that this exists and that exists. Now, we have come to know of some people, meaning in 'aqidah, you will see him in tawheed al uluhiya, in tawheed ul-asma wa sifat, in the issue of al-qadr, in all the issues. However in the issue of the rulers, he declares the rulers to be kufaar. However, I will say a word that I have always repeated. I say manhaj is the protective sphere for the 'aqidah." So what is your statement, baarak Allaahu fikum (may Allaah bless you) about this differentiation?

Fourth answer: Firstly, when the term 'aqidah is applied by Ahlus-Sunnah, then it refers to whatever is settled within the hearts from eeman in Allaah, His angels, His books and His Messengers, and the Last Day, and eeman in al-Qadr, the good of it and the evil of it, and whatever follows after that from the issues of eeman and the affairs of the Unseen, which cannot be reached except through the Kitab or the authentic Sunnah. And compilations have been written about this, and they are called the books of the Sunnah. And they are called the books of 'aqaid (beliefs), because they affirm the 'aqaid of Ahlus-Sunnah in these affairs and whatever follows in whatever is obligatory to have ikhlaas, sincerity to Allaah, and to follow the Messenger of Allaah (salallaahu 'alaihiwasallam). And within that, they mention tawheed ul-'ibaada, tawheed ar-rububiya, and tawheed al-asma wa sifat. So whoever believes this is in agreement with what has been proven by the Kitab and the Sunnah and what the imams have agreed upon, so his 'aqida is correct. And whosoever opposes that, then his 'aqidah is corrupt. Either due to ignorance or due to desire - regardless, his 'aqida is corrupt.

Secondly, the manhaj (linguistically) in the Arabic language is at-tareek (the path). And the intended meaning of it in the sharee'ah is the path through which the ahkam (rules and regulations) of Allaah concerning the acts of worship in belief and action are clarified as well as the dealings between the people. Thirdly, the 'aqidah and the manhaj are interconnected. So the one who falls into a defect in the manhaj, then he will go astray in affairs of 'aqidah. And the one who falls into a defect in the 'aqidah, then he will go astray in affairs of manhaj. For example, when the Jahmiya and the Mu'tazila mention enjoining the good and prohibiting the evil is from their usool, they mean by that revolting against the rulers. And no one doubts in the corruption of the 'aqidah of these two groups. When the Khawarij became corrupt in their manhaj and they deviated from the Kitab and the Sunnah and the way of the salaf us-saleh (pious predecessors), they fell into declaring lawful the blood of the Muslims and their wealth and their honors. And this is haram, by ijma'. And they held it permissible to fight against 'Ali (radiallaahu 'anhu) and those who were with him from the sahaba and the best of the tabi'een. They held this to be a path to Jannah. They would say, "the departure - the departure to jannah." They declared halal the blood of the best of the people of this Ummah after the Messenger of Allaah (salallaahu 'alaihiwasallam). They were the best of the people in this Ummah after the Messenger of Allaah (salallaahu 'alaihiwasallam), and the Khawarij believed them to be kufaar.

And in summary is that in the field of da'wah, Islam brings together 'aqida and manhaj. It brings together the soundness of these two. So whoever's aqida is sound, then his manhaj is upright. And it is inevitable that this must be so. Whosoever's aqida has a defect, then his manhaj will have a defect and vice-versa. Whoever's manhaj has a defect, then he will have a defect in the 'aqida. So the Khawarij would declare someone a kaafir due to a major sin.

They would declare a Muslim a kaafir due to a major sin, so they would declare his blood and his wealth lawful and they would curse his family. So in the dunya, he was a kaafir according to them. And they would pass judgment that he would abide in the fire forever if he died upon that major sin of his. And the Mu'tazila placed the one who committed a major sin in the dunya upon a manzila bayna manzilatain (level between two levels) - [they said] he was neither a Muslim nor a kaafir. And they agreed with the khawarij about the ruling of the hereafter for the one who committed a major sin. So they opposed the Kitab and the Sunnah and the ijma', all of which give evidence that the faasiq-ul-milee (meaning that the one who is sinful but he is a believer in tawheed, i.e. a sinner from the believing people) is a mu'min in the dunya, a believer with his eeman and a faasiq (disobedient sinner) with his major sin. And in the akhira (hereafter), he will be under the will of Allaah. So the defect in their manhaj was based upon the defect in their 'aqida. And if not, then why did they fight the rulers and revolt against them? Because they believed that they were kufaar and that their wealth, blood and honor were halal. Yes.

Fifth question: May Allaah preserve you, our shaykh. 'Alee al-Halabee said about the Jam'iyyah Ihyaa`ut-Turaath of Kuwait, "they are the most abundant of the people in defending the 'aqida of Ahlus-Sunnah and in giving victory to the manhaj of ash-shaykh al-Albanee in the issues of eeman. How can it be said that they are takfiriyoon? This must not be said. However, there are mulahadhat (observations). Which of the two is better? That we be close to them and that we use our closeness to advise them and direct them to the khair (goodness) or that we have enmity toward them so that we drive them away from us and we abandon our greater and more comprehensive da'wah in doing so? Along with that, we say that we do not have a connection to at-Turaath, so that my kalam cannot be taken on the basis that it is a defense. But it is a defense of the truth. I say Jam'iyyah Ihyaa`ut-Turaath has activity, and it has students of knowledge, and it has a large portion of strengths. The first and foremost is that there be a connection between us and that we advise them. Advising them will affect them. Having enmity toward them will not affect them. They have not ceased to become more and more widespread everyday and, unfortunately, whether we want to or not, it is as if we are set back more and more due to these hostile manners." So what is your statement, may Allaah bless you, about this kalam?

Fifth Answer: I say, our brother ash-shaikh 'Alee ibnu Hasan al-Halabee (may Allaah pardon us and him) has been tried by these philosophical principles and he does not realize that he is drowning in the principle of excuse and co-operation: we will co-operate in whatever we have agreed upon and we will excuse each other for whatever we differ in. I consider our brother above doing such a thing, because no one follows this principle except for a naive simpleton who is neglectful or a cunning deceiver.

According to the testimony of trustworthy people in Kuwait, Jam'iyyah Ihyaa`ut-Turaath is a deviant Jam'iyyah. And the best testimony against it is that it accommodates the Qutbiyeen and the Ikhwaniyeen and the Tabligiyeen, and raises them to the level of Ahlul-'Ilm. And this is a path not traveled by a Jam'iyyah which has taken it upon itself to give victory to the Sunnah and its people. And it is not traveled by an individual or a group except if it is playing a double-game, coming to these ones with a face and coming to those with another face. So I don't know what shaikh 'Alee wants when he calls to closeness with them and not separating from them and by belittling those who separate from them by his saying that these are hostile manners. There is a question here: does shaykh 'Alee hold al-wallaa wal baraa (allegiance and enmity) to be from the usool from Ahlus Sunnah or not?

So if he holds it be so, then the one who separates from Jam'iyyah Ihyaa`ut-Turaath and other than it from the deviant Jam'iyyat is starting from the principle of al-wallaa wal-bara